The principle is to assign the highway to the “heaviest” mode of transport it is designated for (in this case, bicycle). The idea is that, since pedestrians are allowed pretty much everywhere, we avoid tagging for them specifically, and thus relieve path of its current overload of meanings.
Under this schema:
A bike-exclusive highway would be highway=cycleway; foot=no
A designated cycleway, with pedestrians tolerated would be highway=cycleway with optional foot=yes (default)
An explicity shared cycle and foot way would be highway=cycleway; foot=designated.
I would argue that cases #2 and #3 are so similar in design and routing that the latter does not deserve being assigned a nebulous highway=path.
Really? I see a footway (sidewalk, with kerb and different paving) and a twoway cycleway which even has bicycles depicted on the tarmac. It’s not a question of dominance, because it’s two physically separate ways.
I would argue that highway=path + foot=designated + bicycle=designated is no more nebulous than highway=cycleway+foot=designated.
highway=cycleway is just short for highway=path + bicycle=designated (and by default only bicycles allowed, according to the word wide access table).
I can understand why a mapper or community would decide that, if a path is the designated way for both foot and bicycle, no preference is given to either, so they use highway=path plus the designations.
It violates the good practice of duck tagging. A cycleway is something where you know you can comfortably ride a bike, and comfortably walk. A path can be so many things that you cannot guarantee anything without additional tags. That’s what nebulous means (dictionary: vague; ill-defined)
By that line of thinking, we could have got rid of all highway tags and stick to highway=road, with access, surface, width, smoothness, lanes etc. further defining its features. Such an approach could work, but not in OSM as we know today. And the current vagueness of path is exactly why we’re having this discussion.
I might add, that sometimes people confuse the german language version of the wiki with the wiki for the country germany, so contrary to the english version someone removed the fact, that such multiuse ways can either be tagged as path or cycleway, or at least hid the cycleway somewhere else under controversy
Or is it? A cycleway is something signed to be a designated cycleway, but there is no guarantee of comfort or skills/bicycle type required. Many countries do not allow walking on cycleways. And the other way around: a comfortable ride does not necessarily mean it’s a cycleway.
I could agree with an assumed set of OSM default attributes for cycleways, expressing the level of comfort you think they offer, including access and comfort for walking, but I have not seen unanimity in this discussion about that. I did notice some objections against defaults in general.
Could not disagree more. This or a similar sign:
makes certain promises as to the degree of comfort on your bike. If it does not deliver, you’re entitled to complain to your municipality or whoever is in charge of maintenance – but not to the OSM or your routing application developers.
Yeah, you can dilute meaning of pretty much any tag in extreme cases, such as the unpaved highway=trunk that leads to the highlands of Lesotho. But if a way is signed like a cycleway, and you can drive your bike along it at the speed of 15 km/h with no damage to your kidneys or danger or being hit by a truck, then you should be sure it is a cycleway not a path.
Don’t know. That’s the UK, and you have different customs than the rest of the world in pretty much every walk of life.
Where else is a “bridleway” a thing, anyway? Of course, you should have a local convention how to tag those, but it does not quack like a cycleway on the first sight.
If it’s signed as a cycleway, it’s a cycleway. If you meet a tractor, local truck, or you have to dismount for somewhere, it’s still a cycleway.
This official sign:
means cycleway, and many of these are unpaved paths. You get no comfort or speed guarantees. They are being maintained, most of the time.
What you seem to have in mind, could be a nice default; then all exceptions in width, other vehicles/horses/people, maxspeed, not very smooth, incline/decline, not paved etc. need extra tags.
In my opinion, this is a footway - the name alone: “Promenade” (French se promener, go for a walk). Then the blue (as in OSM-Carto?) sign – some see there a cycleway, because cycle it is one level up in transport hierarchy over foot - I oppose – the sign says, this is a shared space, yet cyclists have to yield to pedestrians – @Woazboat may know more about the legal aspects.
Of course, there are also the green signs – it is a green way (term more common in US than Europe) – but in Austria (Vienna Convention traffic code) the colour green is not about the ways, it is about OSM relations.
To reassure you, that not all the world is path crazy: Corresponding OSM way tagged cycleway, because it was mapped before path was available and the mapper obviously belonged to the cycle trumps foot group. And it survived as a blunt cycleway 16+ years.
To be honest, I care more about this not being a highway=path than whether this is a highway=cycleway + foot=designated or highway=footway + bicycle=designated.
I would tag this as a highway=cycleway because it follows the convention of using the ‘highest’ transport mode in the hierarchy as the primary tag (and because cycleway conveys more implicit information about the way).
Alternatively, tagging it according to the importance for cyclists/pedestrians is also fine. If it’s mainly used by people taking a walk and cyclists are only a minority (because it’s somehow inconvenient to use, full of people that you’d have to avoid, etc…) → highway=footway. If it’s regularly used by cyclists → highway=cycleway.
The fact that there’s a cycle route sign on the way in the picture is a strong indicator for highway=cycleway.
I do not think that this strongly implies this is for pedestrians. The common English understanding of a ‘promenade’ is mostly about it being a place for leisure and not exclusively about walking. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/promenade
a leisurely walk or ride especially in a public place for pleasure or display
The green cycle route signs in the picture do not have any legal implications afaik and are unrelated to the Vienna convention on road signs. It’s just a very common way to mark cycle routes in Austria.
That would be a wrong assumption in the United States. I would say that it’s uncommon here for a bike path to disallow pedestrians in my experience and I seldom tag explicity foot=yes on them.
while it is true, there is still a difference between the foot=no of cycleways (where you might be allowed to step on, e.g. to cross) and the (often implicit) foot=no on e.g. motorways or railways.
I’d expected a profound expertise on legal matters, but I am fine with personal opinion.
Might that have to do with green vs. blue cycleways? Never mind that distinction, cycleways here are streets in traffic code, but the question whether pedestrians allowed - they are allowed on streets per se – not yet answered by the judiciary - Courts of course boiled out on procedural grounds.
Since this is just a matter of legal access with clear definitions it’s not that much of a problem though. Different access defaults by country are fairly standard.
Sign File:Vienna Convention road sign D4a.svg - Wikipedia does not say, bicycles only. It does say: When on a bicycle, and going this direction, the way marked with sign has to be used. It says nothing about who may not pass there, it is a mandatory sign, not a prohibitory sign.
PS: In openstreetmap, this sign is commonly mapped with bicycle=use_sidepath, in case the cycleway is separately mapped.
I also looked for some pictures I took a few years ago in the hills, the signs say “cycleway”, although they are not the blue ones it could be interpreted as bicycle=designated:
The sign itself just says that this is a shared foot- and cycleway (as defined in § 2. 11a) and that using it is mandatory.
§ 52. Die Vorschriftszeichen
b) Gebotszeichen.
17a. „GEH- UND RADWEG“
a)
b)
Diese Zeichen zeigen einen Geh- und Radweg an, und zwar ein Zeichen nach a) einen für Fußgänger und Radfahrer gemeinsam zu benützenden Geh- und Radweg und ein Zeichen nach b) einen Geh- und Radweg, bei dem der Fußgänger- und Fahrradverkehr getrennt geführt werden, wobei die Symbole im Zeichen nach b) der tatsächlichen Verkehrsführung entsprechend anzuordnen sind (Fußgänger rechts, Fahrrad links oder umgekehrt).
§ 2. Begriffsbestimmungen
11a. Geh- und Radweg: ein für den Fußgänger- und Fahrradverkehr bestimmter und als solcher gekennzeichneter Weg;
That means other vehicles are forbidden on this way per § 8. 4
§ 8. Fahrordnung auf Straßen mit besonderen Anlagen
(4) Die Benützung von Gehsteigen, Gehwegen und Schutzinseln mit Fahrzeugen aller Art und die Benützung von Radfahranlagen mit Fahrzeugen, die keine Fahrräder sind, insbesondere mit Motorfahrrädern, ist verboten.
The only special rule for cyclists on these shared foot- and cycleways is “don’t endanger pedestrians”:
§ 68. Fahrradverkehr
(1) (…) Auf Geh- und Radwegen haben sich Radfahrer so zu verhalten, dass Fußgänger nicht gefährdet werden.
Aside from that there are just the general rules that also apply here but more or less say the same:
§ 20. Fahrgeschwindigkeit.
(1) Der Lenker eines Fahrzeuges hat die Fahrgeschwindigkeit den gegebenen oder durch Straßenverkehrszeichen angekündigten Umständen, insbesondere den Straßen-, Verkehrs- und Sichtverhältnissen, sowie den Eigenschaften von Fahrzeug und Ladung anzupassen. Er darf auch nicht so schnell fahren, daß er andere Straßenbenützer oder an der Straße gelegene Sachen beschmutzt oder Vieh verletzt, wenn dies vermeidbar ist. Er darf auch nicht ohne zwingenden Grund so langsam fahren, daß er den übrigen Verkehr behindert.
Turns out their appearance is actually also regulated by law (but they still don’t have any legal implications).
§ 53. 13e-g
